Anglian (and Montalban),
I can't beat what NewMan said on that; I still don't see where you've dealt with it.
No - he hasn't dealt with it in the least. He merely sidestepped it by pointing to something Catholic scholar Davis said about the Second Council of Lyons supposedly accepting Canon 28 in 1274...although no contextual information is given on that -so there is likely more to the story than this. But in pointing to this example from 1274, Montalban is tacitly admitting more than he should. For this same scholar, on page 194, also says regarding canon 28:
"Only in the sixth century was the twenty-eighth canon admitted into the official canonical collections of the Greek East and in 1274 at the Second Council of Lyons accepted by the Catholic West."
So what Davis is referring to was that canon 28 wasn't accepted "officially" by the Greek East until "the sixth century" - in other words, at the Synod of Trullo. This is rather specious reasoning on Davis' part because, as I have already noted in detail, Trullo was also rejected entirely (at first) and only later were CERTAIN canons accepted (but never canon 28), in spite of numerous attempts by the Byzantines to get it ratified. So if it was "officially accepted" by the Greek East in the sixth century, why, then, did they ask...to the point of KISSING THE POPE'S FEET...for its ratification (which it never got)??? This "official acceptance" of canon 28 by the Greeks came much later - after the schism when the EOs no longer cared if the Pope ratified it or not. And if we want to point to Lyons in 1274 as a watershed moment where both sides supposedly agreed on canon 28...it must also be pointed out that both sides ALSO agreed to the filioque in this same Council. So if Montalban wishes to posit that this Council is binding, then doesn't this presuppose that the schism is healed and canon 28 (assuming this is accurately reported by Davis) and the filioque are both universally accepted? Why would canon 28 even be relevent if Constantinople is in schism from Rome?
My point is that if Montalban wishes to point to 1274, then he is illustrating that it was never "accepted" officially in a universal context (and it IS a canon that sets up jurisdictions for the universal Chuch to accept - is it not???) until two centuries AFTER the Great Schism...at the earliest - and this is assuming there is not more to the story than what this scholar states.
So the question becomes this...at what time in history where Constantinople and Rome were in communion with each other (pre 1055) did canon 28 ever become "official" for the Church entire? Never.
Few scholars would regard a TV website as authoritative; I am sure you'd not use its resources for supporting papal claims.
Of course it is not authoritative, although the vast majority of stuff at EWTN is pretty reliable. In this case, I would either disagree with whomever wrote that the Pope didn't want the Council (for plenty of other scholars have a different opinion) or I would point out that in his brief summary he did not choose to get into details about the matter (I lean toward the latter). For the EWTN writer spoke of Leo's initial wish to handle the matter without a Council (that much is probably true...why have a council if there is the possibility of other options? I don't blame the Pope for looking for an easier solution at first), but when it became obvious the problem would not be effectively taken care of without a Council, it was the Pope who went to the Emperor asking for one. And the Emperor agreed, only he did not want it in Italy. This is the problem when we take a couple of sentences meant to provide a summary and extrapolate out of that that the Pope did not want to have a Council. There is more to the story and we need to consider the fuller explanations offered by other scholars.
Now Montalban has raised a number of issues related to Chrysostom and other things, which I plan to address properly when I have the time to do so. But I have to admit to a bit of trepidation here because of the large investment of time to properly address some of these issues, and I have not sensed a real reciprocal willingness to deal with the evidence I have already provided on other matters. But I will proceed forward in good faith assuming that we are just in the "feeling out" process for understanding each other's way of approaching things. Maybe I misunderstand where he is coming from. So I will proceed, but cautiously.
God's Peace,
NewMan
